Last Combat Troops Leave Iraq

[Mechanix544]

ya, i have some good old stories about a meth lab opertaing in the basement of one of our barracks buildings back at fort carson, and three girls in my unit getting hemmed up for prostitution charges for charging 50 bux a lay while they were over there.

Ridiculous

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

ya, i have some good old stories about a meth lab opertaing in the basement of one of our barracks buildings back at fort carson, and three girls in my unit getting hemmed up for prostitution charges for charging 50 bux a lay while they were over there.

Ridiculous

Yep that seemed like the going rate. And PVT "Joe Snuffy" would always pay up.

[Mechanix544]

Of course he would. What is sexier than a hot woman, literally with sand in her crack, sweat stains in her panties, and unshaven legs and armpits?

I really can't think of anything......

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

50k still remain...what are the going to do there? Part-time combat?

Exactly. They didn't all "leave". They renamed them. Kudos to Obama for finally "keeping a promise" he made to those that voted for him. Many of them will be too dumb to realize they're being snookered on this one.

[Mechanix544]

Well, supposedly, we are only to be in combat situations when the Iraqi Army "asks" for our assistance.

Like their orders dont come from us in the first place.

Its funny how the left is touting this as such a good thing, when there will still be a force of over 58,000 US soldiers and half that many civilian contractors. Over 80,000 men still over there does not a promise keep.

This feels kind of like Obamas "Mission Accomplished" to me.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

Of course he would. What is sexier than a hot woman, literally with sand in her crack, sweat stains in her panties, and unshaven legs and armpits?

I really can't think of anything......

All of the above on her period right after she took a shit. Thank heaven for baby wipes. :vomit:

[12thMan]

Saden, the 50K are more or less security forces escorting and protecting government officials, diplomats and the like. A portion of that, no one's sure what's the number, are there for counter terrorism, and then a portion are still respoonsible for training.

But my guess is if shit pops off we'll have some boys over there to handle business.

[Schneed10]

More than anything, our presence there offers us a strategic position on the map in the event Iran wants to start something.

We're primarily there to train the Iraqis and be a stable force to protect the newly formed government. But having a base that close to Iran (which happens to be between Iran and Israel) definitely plays into it.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

More than anything, our presence there offers us a strategic position on the map in the event Iran wants to start something.

We're primarily there to train the Iraqis and be a stable force to protect the newly formed government. But having a base that close to Iran (which happens to be between Iran and Israel) definitely plays into it.

I think our hands are kinda tied on Iran. But you may be right, from an intel perspective we might be able to keep an eye on Iran, but nothing more than that.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think our hands are kinda tied on Iran. But you may be right, from an intel perspective we might be able to keep an eye on Iran, but nothing more than that.

Not sure what you mean by hands are tied, but our presence in Iraq offers a few strategic things:

- Possible future deployment location for our anti-missile system. Kind of hard for Iran to assault Israel with long range missiles if we have a system to shoot down their birds.

- Iraq becomes a possible staging area for future mid-east conflicts, whether they involve the defense of Israel, or whatever.

- Geographically, it puts an American presence right smack between Syria and Iran.

- Increased leverage on Iran in negotiations for nuclear non-proliferation.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Angry

I am kind of preterbed about the headline of the article. There are still 56,000 troops over there. Saying that the last combat convoy has left Iraq does not sit well with me. All soldiers are combatants and all combatants are still armed. Those soldiers will still travel in convoys carring a basic load. We still have a presence there and to say that it is over is disrespectfull to those who are still there.

They cannot call them combat troops because then Obam would not have full filled his promise to have the troops out of Iraq. Not sure why they are worried about that now after all the other promises he has broken.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Not sure what you mean by hands are tied, but our presence in Iraq offers a few strategic things:

- Possible future deployment location for our anti-missile system. Kind of hard for Iran to assault Israel with long range missiles if we have a system to shoot down their birds.

- Iraq becomes a possible staging area for future mid-east conflicts, whether they involve the defense of Israel, or whatever.

- Geographically, it puts an American presence right smack between Syria and Iran.

- Increased leverage on Iran in negotiations for nuclear non-proliferation.

Just what I said, I think our hands are tied, or better said, our options are limited regarding military action against Iran. For political reasons and as a matter of practical military resources, there is no way we'll strike yet a third Arab/Muslim nation in the span of 10 years without provocation. That just won't fly globally.

Think about it, Iran is one of the only nations in that region without nuclear weps. India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear capabilities and can protect their sovereign borders. So why can't Iran? This is what Ahmadinejad is selling to the Iranian regime every day. And it's a pretty compelling argument.

This is an interesting debate on many levels and opinions vary, but I personally don't see it happening. I think Iran is more interested in appearing as a threat than actually becoming one. That's where they hold the most leverage against the United States and Israel. The minute the United States starts ramping up efforts to strike, we play right into Ahmadinejad's hands and lose credibility with the millions of Iranians who want change.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Not sure what you mean by hands are tied, but our presence in Iraq offers a few strategic things:

- Possible future deployment location for our anti-missile system. Kind of hard for Iran to assault Israel with long range missiles if we have a system to shoot down their birds.

- Iraq becomes a possible staging area for future mid-east conflicts, whether they involve the defense of Israel, or whatever.

- Geographically, it puts an American presence right smack between Syria and Iran.

- Increased leverage on Iran in negotiations for nuclear non-proliferation.

But I guess for the argument you're making, I totally agree. It's good for strategic purposes, but I think that's all it will ever boil down to.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

But I guess for the argument you're making, I totally agree. It's good for strategic purposes, but I think that's all it will ever boil down to.

Yeah, I never said we'd be there to start something with Iran. But we're there to respond. They're repeatedly hostile to Israel, saying they should be wiped off the map.

It's a deterrent more than anything.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by firstdown

They cannot call them combat troops because then Obam would not have full filled his promise to have the troops out of Iraq. Not sure why they are worried about that now after all the other promises he has broken.

Exactly right. It's nothing more than politics. Try telling any one of those nearly 60,000 soldiers over there that they aren't "combat troops." Hogwash.